Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 49 of about 101 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner michael antonini is here, but [speaker not understood]. commissioner borden? >> here. >> [speaker not understood]? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up is items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2012.0847d, 28-30 toledo way, request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to november 15th, 2012. items 2a and b for case numbers 2007.0036d, 422 vicente street and 2007.0037d, 422 vicente street mandatory discretionary reviews pro poed for continuance to december 6, 2012. further on your calendar, commissioners, under the regular calendar, item 15 on the corrected calendar for case no. 2012.0928ddd for 2000 20th street request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to december 13th. i have actually one speaker card. >> mark de vicente. come on up to the microphone. >>> i think my card is pretty self-explanatory. >> sir, if you could state your name for the record. >>> mark de vicente. i'm the dr requester. i cannot make the proposed continuance date on the 15th. i am available the next three thursdays. i just can't make it next week. >>
. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first on your calendar, commissioners, are consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. case no. 2011.0430e at 4 08 potrero avenue, appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration proposed for continuance to january 17, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance. >> is there any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner wu. >> i move to continue item number 1 to january 17th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> so moved unanimously, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 0. next up is your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussionvv of these
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
? seeing none commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the consent items before us which are items two, three, four, and five. >> second. >> on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner with you wu. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. before you is questions and matters and item seven commission comments. >> commissioner borden. >> hi. i spoke about this with ms. rogers and with the ceqa legislation and i was thinking in term was legislation we had with the awnings and stuff that supervisor chu has put forth and i thought it would be great in policy things that are changing the policy code or ceqa that affect this commission could we could have informational hearings early on in the process and not action items and understand the issues because i feel like a lot of times for legislation people get a packet. you don't really understand. sometimes it's not until we have the hearing where it's illuminating what the legislation is saying and various scen
with you. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> present. >> commissioner borden. >> here. >> commissioner hillis. >> here. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> and commissioner avery. >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first up is items for continuous and item one at harve street and proposed for continuous until december 13, 2012. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on these two items? >> do you want to talk about item 11? >> six? >> 11. >> yes. >> under the calendar with consultation with the city attorney's office this item needs to be continued to november 29. >> could you repeat that item, that last item please? >> absolutely. commissioners, under your regular calendar item 11 the amendments to administrative code chapter 31 to clarify certain procedures provided in that specifically ceqa is proposed for continuous after consultation with the city attorney's office. >> is there any public comment on the th
listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misu
. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, ms. young, are you in agreement with the project sponsor as far as the distances that have been presented in the report? it looks like they're fairly extensive between the patio area, the closest being 85 feet, many of them over 100 feet. >> am i in agreement? >> do you agree with the accuracy of that, what we saw? >> i'd say roughly it should be from that radius. i didn't have a map to scale that was presented to me, but based on that, i mean, even going, i guess on a site, there is some distance as far as like the large parking lot, common area. >> right, that's my key point. we have had a number of different patio situations and almost all of them are much closer to adjoining neighbors and these are i would say huge distances, with parking lots in between. and it sounds to me like they've modified their usage to go only to 10 o'clock at night, is that correct? >> yes. just to clarify, with the neighbors came in, [speaker not understood] the restaurant was closed at 10:00 and patrons were outside finishing up, cleaning up, what have you. we are
>> commissioner antonini. >> l i would speak against that extension. this is an administrative code matter which is under the province of the board of supervisors, and we do not have to have a hearing, but we're allowed to have a hearing in a period of time before the board takes it up. it's fortunate that the supervisor because of the noticing that's being continued because of notice error and we don't have choice on that and i think the 29 is when we should continue it and certainly gives everyone time to read the material and understand it, and be ready to comment at that time, but absent that date it's quite possible that we might not have any input from planning before it goes to the board of supervisors for consideration, and i think having a hearing is more important than having none, so i would move that we continue items one, item number six to the dates slated for those. actually number six is to the sixth and item number 11 to the 29th. >> i will second that motion but we will have more discussion. >> okay. commissioner moore. >> i am glad that we are considering c
antonini. >> yeah, i just had a couple of questions regarding the status of the land. it was a redevelopment area, but it is now going to be governed by the agency, successor agency, i would assume. but from what i'm hearing, it's not eligible for any of the funding mechanisms that were available under redevelopment before because they're gone. so, we're kind of in limbo. >> and schlage is a really unique -- i think it is the only former redevelopment area that is in this position. it is an area which went all the way to get adopted as a redevelopment area which in the stateside makes it a redevelopment area and therefore ineligible for things like ifds, but there were no contracts. there were no obligations signed. so, there were never the participation agreement or documents they would sign with the redevelopment agency to commit to the provisions of the redevelopment plan, never happened. and because those obligations -- the only obligations that are going to be carried forward after the demise of redevelopment law are those existing obligations. since there were n
, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. he commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> commissioner wu, you are here by recused. >> okay, continuing on with public comment, i think, jonas, there is one on the rail there. if there is any other public comment, if you would like to come up. all right. nichiko yamada. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nichiko yamada and i live at 1959 sutter street adjacent to rooster tail restaurant. i grew up in the western addition jay town area and my parents owned a small japanese confectionery store in this neighborhood for 36 years. my parents believed that they were able to be in business for so long because of the good will and support of this neighborhood and community. i am proud of their achievement. our neighborhood is a diverse neighborhood with a culturally rich history. people here are friendly, supportive and welcoming of businesses. many are long-term residents who have lived here for 20, 30
? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student housing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when
online to the extent that we can would be useful information. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i would agree 100% with the request from commissioner borden because categorize things as market rate or affordable and we had instances a couple years ago where many of the market rate units were sold for less than have been the inclusionary amount that would have been charged under the ordinance, so it's important to really see real case situations and understand what you're really talking about in terms of the costs. a couple of other items in terms of the commission's secretary subcommittee search i am still waiting for a reply from hr in regards to the classification issue, and i am hopeful i will hear something on that issue within the next few days and i will follow up with that and see where we are. secondly i would strongly urge everyone who has not seen the movie "lincoln" to go see it. it's excellent. unlike many movies today there is dialogue and it's thought provoking and the period of time it deals with is one of the important, not just for the country but the s
antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley. i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- >>> that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. >>> first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not
people in neighborhoods are looking for. >> okay, yeah. definitely. >> commissioner antonini. >> a couple things i read in a little more depth through most of this. one thing that seemed a little curious to me is a category private household employees, and that number increased a lot from 2002 to 2011. i'm not sure how these are really being categorized. there are many instances where in a private home you'll employ someone often as an outside contractor, like a gardner and he or she will do a number of different jobs in a given day. they will have many different employers, of course. i'm not quite sure how that does -- those figures are compiled. also in similar ways, people may not be employed exclusively by one person. they might be employed by a lot of different people. so, are we taking those things into account when we bring these numbers up, which seem pretty high to me? >> i think the short answer is yes, it's taken into consideration. i think the measure is -- the first point that that data was contained within the cie sector up until 2009. and, so, it pops out separately. finall
. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a few things. i know we mentioned infrastructure financing, which, of course, has a lot of promise, i think, and the ability to transfer a certain percentage of the tax increment dollars. i think it's maximum 65 cents depending on whether you have the assessment for schools in there or not. so, that seems like a promising possibility. and the other thing would be, and i guess a lot has to do with the plans universal paradigm corporation. we have a number of things the community has wanted, about we have to find out what is going to appeal to the business community and allow development to move forward. and it may not always be an exact fit, but certainly, you know, if there's something that's out there that is more attractive and it's an area that has a lot of potential with its transit locations and its closeness to the freeway, closeness to caltrain, closeness to muni, it could be a very appealing site for a variety of things and i'm sure everybody is aware of that. it looks as though the plan from looking at this is that the light rail is going t
portion is closed. opening up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is an excellent project for a lot of reasons that have already been brought up. pointed out the siting in such a way to allow access to oscar park, allow light and air into a whole area of the city. i think that's extremely well done. there was one comment made by a commenter that they don't see the cumulative appearance, but architect has done a very good job of our materials put on the screen and showing what the skyline would look like with all the buildings in place that are those that we know of are either already entitled or are planned to be entitled in the future. and i think that answers a lot of the questions about what the cumulative effect of all the buildings in the area will be. so, i think this is a wonderful project and there will probably be in other commissioners with some comments, but i'm happy to move approval for the 309 compliance, which i believe is what's before us. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> i'll second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, never mind. >> commi
on this item? commissioners any questions? commissioner antonini. >> i had a couple questions for any of you. first of all i guess i noticed that you have increased the number of units within the allowable amount as we know, and decreased the parking, and recently we had a presentation by tishman a fire for 201 folsom and they went in the other direction making the units larger and smaller number of units because they found that 400 i think 400 -- 300 -- the first infinity tower his more families with children and they felt the demand was there for the larger units, so this seems to be the ols in your case. maybe you can tell me the reason for smaller units and the two bedroom or larger is less than in our original entitlement. >> commissioner antonini i can address two of the questions of the ones that you presented. i cannot address the tishman spire strategy in changing or creating their program. art stone is a rental developer, owner-operator, and the intention here -- one of the intentions in redesigning the project was to design a rental high rise. we think we've got it right. eve
concluded public comment commissioners. >> commissioners, comments? questions? commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i appreciate the presentation. with the neighborhood districts in folsom seems like a logical place for that zoning. i'm a little bit concerned -- i would have to hear about no maximum density in some of the residential -- you know the red districts where the district residents are and some of them are finely grained and might be fine with machine is comfortable in the two unit building and then there are eight unit building and i'm not sure this applies to new building or existing and if it's existing it could change the whole complexion or climate in a small quiet cult sack or red district, and the same for the parking maximums. i think i would need to know more about what it says and one size doesn't fit all and some places should have more parking allowed. i think mixed use makes sense. we dictated that we have housing above ground floor retail and it sits empty forever. just because you zone today for that, adjust because you created it doesn't mean somebody
to the motion, i think i see commissioner antonini supporting me on that, that the facade would be brought up to a more kind of improved contemporary appearance with transparent or glazing and the signage which obviously falls within the rules of the department recommends for this area. >> commissioner, if i may, the staff has prepared a motion of disapproval. so, you need to take a motion of intent to approve and then continue this item to two weeks from now or -- >> we need time to prepare the motion. >> right. >> what are the specifics of what we are basically given that direction. >> depending upon how quickly staff can put that together, you should continue that out to december 13th or even to january, potentially put it on consent. >> okay. >> so, i would modify my motion to make it intent to approve. i would continue to december 13th and i would also add the recommendations of commissioner moore to, you know, the clear glazing and try to -- without changing any facade severely that it would trigger the historic but perhaps the framing could be changed from aluminum, which i doubt is hi
antonini. >> well, i have a few questions and haven't had the opportunity to reach the detail of the plan. but mr. cohen mentioned these items concerning metering of affordable housing and metering of jobs. is there anything in the plan that, you know, blocks the possibility of housing unless there's high percentages of affordable housing built as part of them or i think we should be aware of these things before we approve something. >> [speaker not understood] staff. the plan does have a policy that basically states that there should be an established policy to help balance affordable housing and jobs in the plan area. it did not go into specific details, the exact mechanisms of how that would happen. the task force did work on drafting a more detailed policy and outlining what those mechanisms could be and that's where the metering phrase comes from. as we talked about last week, that specific element, what is considered the community stabilization policy, even though it is a policy in the plan, nothing in the planning code changes or the zoning map amendments address that at this time.
there. * tech difficulty >> commissioner antonini. >> one final thing on your regional distribution. you may not have control over this. it may be drawn up by abag or somebody else. east bay, south bay and san francisco. the south bay includes san mateo and santa clara counties. i hardly think of [speaker not understood]. it's really you need a separate category for the peninsula, you know, and makes the distribution a little bit more realistic in terms of what people -- most people think about and one would assume that should be san mateo county and the south bay should be santa clara and perhaps santa cruz county, but most of the population and businesses are in santa clara. the east bay categories and the north bay categories seem to be fairly straightforward, but the one for the south bay seems to be skewed in a way that is not really accurate and the distances from san francisco for some of the places and san mateo county are very short. so, might want to revise that. >> we'll give that some thought definitely. that would involve doing it for the whole time series. good point,
. >> another comment following up on commissioner antonini's observation about the ridership figures. i mean, he's right. san bruno experienced a 99.6% increase. >> right. >> at the same time ingleside increased by 144.6. and other lines like bryant went down by 32%. number wise it isn't as significant as the other two i mentioned, but there seems to be a lot of increase and decrease fluctuations going on. and it might be interesting to know from muni, you know, why that's happening. >> i'll ask them and get back to you. >> okay. >> commissioner borden. >> yes, that's a good question. what is done with this report? i mean, i love getting this data and information, but does the mta look at this report and make decisions or does it inform, say, their transit projects and the way that they're looking at some of the work that they're implementing? do other departments and agencies, you know, building department, you know, do they review this report, does anything happen with it? >> it goes out as distributed to a small group of folks inside the city and outside the city that have interest in it.
. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm glad the project is coming forward and i very much appreciate commissioner antonini's questions about the grass. i would agree with him that the drought resistant trees offer [speaker not understood] being in the drought or dry instead of those kind of trees which help us also with sun and wind and protection of the adjacent unit which is energy efficiency. the one thing i would like to put a question mark to is that light green area astroturf for dogs. where did that come from? it is astroturf, artificial grass for dogs. >> it will be something that will be easy to clean, permeable, but easy to clean. >> i haven't seen the stuff you're talking about. i'm not very happy about that being a feature of public open spaces, dogs, people or both of them. we should carefully look at that as nothing we really want to be associated with. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, [speaker not understood], could you refresh my memory when we looked at this originally in terms of development plan, there is a street in here. >> right. >> and could you -- it doesn't seem like on the face of
comment? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. as a west side resident, i drive through here frequently. when i'm coming across town, i think this is a very good project and it starts to help us to meet some of the housing demand in a very small way. and we are limited in the number of sites we have available, but i've talked to tim colin in the past about taking a trip. there are some, there are some opportunity sites and if you say you're losing your open space, all you have to do is look at the rendering across the street that shows a huge area on the other side of garden side where there is nothing built. and even if some additional structures were ever built there, you've got the whole area of twin peaks that is adjacent to twin peaks boulevard and garden side and other streets that are open space. and, so, i think this has been very well done. as was pointed out, there is a 19-foot wide space where the steps are and a fairly, more generous space than was the case with the other developments on the other side. and, so, i thi
for this week. >> thank you. any public comment on the supervisors report? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> thank you. thanks, ms. rodgers, for a great report as always. i think you had said that the mayor's office is continuing to work together with supervisor olague on that legislation that you were alluding to, or is it now being introduced? because i know they were continuing to modify the legislation about the ability for people who had previously been in public housing to return to that housing -- newly built housing. >> that's correct, she continued to work with not only the mayor's office of housing, but also the housing authority and ndn, both of those agencies came before the land use committee saying they could now support the ordinance as it had been made. * in the end >> great. my other question, i see supervisor kim is here, it's not agendized. i just want more details on her suggestion to the port that they see about the possibility of allowing some of their properties to be used by the mayor's office of housing for affordable housing. just more details on how that would
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 101 (some duplicates have been removed)